Point of Law : When once the doubt arise in the mind of the court, the benefit of such doubt should always accrue on the part of the accused and it is the doctrine of criminal justice delivery system, insofar as Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, it relates to proving and disproving of the facts.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is preferred by the State challenging the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.169/2013 dated 06.04.2016 whereby acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 324, 307 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In this appeal the Appellant/State is seeking to set-aside the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Court and to convict the accused for the aforesaid offences which are charged against them amongst the various other grounds urged in this appeal.

2. Heard learned HCGP for Appellant / State who is present before the Court physically and learned Senior counsel Sri P.P. Hegde for respondents / accused who is appearing through video conferencing. Perused the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.169/2013.

3. The factual matrix of the appeal are as under:

It is transpired in the case of the prosecution that on 23.10.2012 accused Nos.1 to 3 with common intention to insult and to provoke breach of peace had questioned CWs.1 to 3 when they were pasting the posters of a neighbouring State School at Moodshedde area at about 11.45 p.m. and abused them in filthy language. As a result of exchange of words in terms of abusing, accused Nos. 1 to 3 alleged to have assaulted CW.1 with means of knife on his head and accused Nos.2 and 3 with wooden club and reaper over his person. In pursuance of the act of the accused on filing of a complaint by PW.1, criminal law was set into motion by registering the case in Crime No.157/2012 and whereby the FIR as per Ex.P14 came to be recorded. Whereas in the complaint made by PW.1 – Hyder Ali who is the injured and he has narrated in his complaint that accused Nos.1 to 3 said to have been assaulted over his person with means of knife and also with means of wooden club and wooden reeper as a result caused injuries over his person. Accordingly, PW.12 had given treatment to the injured and issued wound certificate as per Ex.P16.

4. Subsequent to registration of the crime by the police having jurisdiction, FIR as per Ex.P14 came to be recorded in Crime No.157/2012 by the Kavoor Police Station, D.K. Mangaluru. Subsequent to registration of crime and so also, criminal law was set into motion that PW.15 being the Investigating Officer took up the case for investigation and the investigation was done thoroughly and charge sheet came to be laid against the accused before the Court having jurisdiction. Thereafter the Committal Court committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial by passing an order under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. by following the provisions under Sections 207 and 208 of Cr.P.C.

5. Subsequent to committing the case to the Court of Sessions for trial that the accused were secured for facing of a trial and charges were framed by the trial Court. After hearing the arguments advanced by the prosecution and the defence counsel, the trial Court having found prima-facie materials on record against the accused, consequently, the charges were framed against the accused under Sections 504, 324, 307 r/w 34 of IPC. The charges were read over to the accused in the language known to them and whereby the accused did not pleaded guilty but claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the plea of the accused was recorded separately.

6. Subsequent to framing of charge that the prosecution was subjected to examination in all PWs.1 to 15 and also got marked Exs.P1 to P22 and also, M.O.1 to M.O.6. Subsequent to closure of evidence of the prosecution that the accused were examined as required under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for enabling them to answer incriminating evidence appeared against the accused whereby the accused denied the truth of the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Subsequent to recording the incriminating statement appeared against the accused that the accused did not come forward to adduce any defence evidence as contemplated under Section 233 of Cr.P.C.

7. Subsequent to closure of evidence on the part of the prosecution and so also o